Abuse of freedom is dangerous

Jan 19, 2011

Andrei Sitov

White house. Photo by Vsevolod Pulya

Criticized for his questioning of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, ITAR-TASS's Andrei Sitov responds.

A question I asked at a White House briefing recently has led to a
number of personal attacks on me in the American media, including one in the
Washington Post. In the name of the very rights and freedoms my critics
claim to defend, I am asking for a chance to respond.

Tragedies such as the one in Arizona where a young man shot Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords and killed six other people in a shooting
spree this month happen far too often in the United States to be explained away
as isolated and totally unrelated incidents. I feel they are a terrible price
the Americans pay for the freedoms (more exactly, the abuse of the freedoms) that
they enjoy. That was the premise of my question.

The right to buy and bear arms is the most obvious example of a
freedom that can easily be abused. Even my most liberal Russian friends don’t
argue with that. But, as one of them wrote to me, other “more
fundamental” freedoms such as the freedom of speech have nothing to do with the
case.

If that is so why was America’s first reaction to the Arizona
killings a soul-searching debate on the limits of political rhetoric?

Why did County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who is overseeing the
investigation point to the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" in the
national political discourse that in his view may have influenced the attacker?
“That may be free speech, he said, but it’s not without consequences.”

Why did President Obama himself deplore the ”sharp polarization”
of the discourse and urge his countrymen to talk with each other “in a way that
heals, not in a way that wounds”?

The President gave great advice. What prevents many Americans from
taking it? To me as an outside observer, one answer seems to be psychological.

Americans have a proud tradition of individualism. It’s a core
value here; there is almost a “cult of personality” of the personal rights and
freedoms of every U.S. citizen. Mostly it serves the nation well. But it can
also be abused. The sense of entitlement it creates (“My way or the highway”,
“I want what I want and I want it now”) is a negative value that can turn truly
dangerous in a deranged mind.

Another answer is cultural. Many American movies and television
shows including children’s cartoons are very violent. I suppose they are
protected by creative and commercial rights and freedoms, too.

My nine-year-old son does not see a connection between violence on
screen and in real life, even though he and his classmates were deeply
disturbed by the news of someone shooting a girl their age. I am somewhat
older than nine, and I suspect the correlation exists.

Some people say that I belong in a totalitarian society with my
views. This argument actually helps me to illustrate my original point. Imagine what would happen if rights and freedoms
in the U.S. were suddenly severely restricted. There would probably be
much less shooting in the street. But the government of the people and by
the people chooses not to impose such restrictions. Freedoms continue. So do tragedies. It’s a
matter of political choice.

People have debated this choice, this delicate balance between
security and freedom, for ages. Every nation in the world faces it, and the U.S.
is no exception. After Arizona, even the ACLU admitted in a memo: “The First Amendment to the Constitution is
not a barrier to effective law enforcement action.

This looks like a very
basic and even self-evident admission. Yet the memo shows how hard it was for
the ACLU to make it. Americans often seem to be almost hard-wired to choose
freedom over anything else.

Look at what an
American blogger had to say about my original question: “Um, yeah, it *is* the
price we pay for our freedoms. And it says a lot about our country that our
freedoms mean so much to us that we're willing to make certain things harder
for ourselves in order to ensure it.”

Exactly. And I’m not criticizing this attitude. I actually admire
it. But I think the trade-off between security and freedom needs to be
explicitly acknowledged. I
know that some people were offended by the timing and phrasing of my question.
I am deeply sorry for that. But for the last couple of years it has been very
hard for foreign journalists like myself to be recognized for questions at
White House briefings. We have to take the few chances we get and we phrase our
queries as best we can.

Frankly, the indignant reaction of some of the American media to
the exchange in the briefing room (some of them even said it was a throwback to
the Cold War) came as a surprise to me. It looks like a double standard:
American journalists in Moscow who ask pointed questions of Russian officials
are heroes and defenders of democracy and human rights, but a Russian
journalist who raises a sensitive domestic issue in America is somehow a
warmonger who deliberately insults the U.S., supposedly for ideological reasons.

Stereotypes like this were themselves characteristic of the Cold
War. I guess old habits die hard. For my part, I admire and respect the
American people and have very many friends in the U.S. The Americans have
created a very good (though far from perfect) life for themselves – in a large
part by keeping a constant watch on those who are elected to build up their
democracy.

Questioning authorities is an important function of the press. I
am trying to do my job raising subjects that I feel are important. But I ask
questions to get answers, not to start an argument. I always accurately report
on those answers. And I obviously never presume to tell the Americans how they
should run their own affairs.

Finally, my prayers are with the victims of the tragedy in Arizona.
I know some of my colleagues question even the sincerity of my condolences. But
I offer them from the heart.

I wish those who are wounded a full and speedy recovery. I hope
that the emotional wounds will also heal.

I hope America can find a way to prevent such tragedies in the
future, without sacrificing its liberties.